Intel 320 Series SSD reviews
Yesterday saw Intel release a new range of mainstream SSDs from Intel, making use of 25 nanometre memory.آ Are they worthy of consideration in the ever-growing Solid State storage market?
Last month we saw Intel launch the 510 Series. The unit did not live up to our expectations from an Intel controller - mostly because an Intel controller it was not. Just as they were blind sighted and rushed a 6Gb/sec motherboard solution to the market, Intel did the same with the 510, opting for a Marvell controller. Sure they worked some of their own firmware magic into it, but there is only so much you can squeeze out of a given piece of hardware. Their Sandy Bridge launch did not go so great either, as some of our readers are still getting their motherboards replaced with correctly functioning B3 versions.
The 320 Series boasts 25nm flash memory. PC Perspective got a first hand look at 25nm production early last year. We had been waiting for this memory to make an appearance in an Intel part, and our wait is finally over.
A single die of 25nm flash holds a whopping 8GB. While multiple dies can be stacked inside each chip package, the more you stack, the greater chance a failed part will cause a TSOP to be considered bad during the production process. For this reason, larger die capacities and fewer dies per chip make things cheaper to produce all around. This should make for some competitive pricing as well.
PC PerspectiveThe 320 Series boasts 25nm flash memory. PC Perspective got a first hand look at 25nm production early last year. We had been waiting for this memory to make an appearance in an Intel part, and our wait is finally over.
A single die of 25nm flash holds a whopping 8GB. While multiple dies can be stacked inside each chip package, the more you stack, the greater chance a failed part will cause a TSOP to be considered bad during the production process. For this reason, larger die capacities and fewer dies per chip make things cheaper to produce all around. This should make for some competitive pricing as well.
Like the X25-M models that have come before it, the Intel 320 Series packs MLC flash memory based on the latest process node in chip fabrication technology. This 25-nm NAND is paired with Intel's existing controller silicon, which has been augmented by firmware tweaks and new capabilities designed with data integrity in mind.
As the 320 model number suggests, the third-generation X25-M is meant to slot in below the high-end 510 Series. Don't get your hopes up for a new standard in storage performance. Intel appears to have focused most of its efforts on improving this drive's reliability and lowering costs. Those strike me as sensible points of focus for a mid-range SSD making the transition to 25-nano flash. As Intel astutely points out, the performance delta between decent SSDs and mechanical hard drives is huge next to the comparatively minor differences in performance between various SSD models. The Intel 320 isn't meant to challenge for the SSD performance crown. Instead, it's looking to lure more folks into the SSD fold.
When briefing the press last week, Intel spent much more time talking about reliability than it did discussing performance. We haven't heard much from SSD makers on this front, but Intel revealed some interesting figures about the X25-M, which has been deployed internally throughout the company. Among the 50,000 drives pressed into service by Intel's IT department, the annual failure rate is claimed to be 0.61%. Intel also quotes a 0.26% failure rate for the over 100,000 X25-Ms in use by ZT Systems, an enterprise customer running the drives in a datacenter environment. For the over 800,000 SSDs that Intel has shipped into the distribution channel, the failure rate is said to be only 0.4%. Since these figures come from Intel, we'll need to add salt—but perhaps only a sprinkle. Earlier this year, a French retailer released reliability stats on hard drive failures. Intel SSDs had a failure rate of 0.59%, while the solid-state competition from Corsair, Crucial, Kingston, and OCZ ranged from 2.17-2.93%.
The Tech ReportAs the 320 model number suggests, the third-generation X25-M is meant to slot in below the high-end 510 Series. Don't get your hopes up for a new standard in storage performance. Intel appears to have focused most of its efforts on improving this drive's reliability and lowering costs. Those strike me as sensible points of focus for a mid-range SSD making the transition to 25-nano flash. As Intel astutely points out, the performance delta between decent SSDs and mechanical hard drives is huge next to the comparatively minor differences in performance between various SSD models. The Intel 320 isn't meant to challenge for the SSD performance crown. Instead, it's looking to lure more folks into the SSD fold.
When briefing the press last week, Intel spent much more time talking about reliability than it did discussing performance. We haven't heard much from SSD makers on this front, but Intel revealed some interesting figures about the X25-M, which has been deployed internally throughout the company. Among the 50,000 drives pressed into service by Intel's IT department, the annual failure rate is claimed to be 0.61%. Intel also quotes a 0.26% failure rate for the over 100,000 X25-Ms in use by ZT Systems, an enterprise customer running the drives in a datacenter environment. For the over 800,000 SSDs that Intel has shipped into the distribution channel, the failure rate is said to be only 0.4%. Since these figures come from Intel, we'll need to add salt—but perhaps only a sprinkle. Earlier this year, a French retailer released reliability stats on hard drive failures. Intel SSDs had a failure rate of 0.59%, while the solid-state competition from Corsair, Crucial, Kingston, and OCZ ranged from 2.17-2.93%.
View or post comments.
Read More ...
No comments:
Post a Comment